-
Bhangra discussion is still going strong. Join us in our Facebook group!
New user registration has been closed (as it was entirely spam). We encourage you to post in our Facebook group, even if it's a followup to an existing thread. BTF will continue to be archived and hosted here - Saleem
Petition. I need signatures! UPDATED
- Thread starter J Wong
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,459
Hi Jordan,
A few questions first: Wouldn't this create more of a deficit for the U.S. government? In the recession we are in, would this be the smartest strategy to pursue?
The latest presidential campaign between Obama & Romney cost an estimated $6 billion dollars total (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/).
Who exactly would determine how much each candidate would receive? Would 3rd Party canidates get the same amount as Democratic & Republic canidates? Wouldn't 3rd party canidates need less money then the two major party canidates or do you feel that all should get equal amounts? Also, how do you prevent random people from starting their own political parties (apparently it's not that hard: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/08/how_to_start_a_political_party.html) and receiving these taxpayer funds from the government to "run their campaign"?
Btw, in the 2012 election these were other major 3rd party canidates:
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party
Virgil Goode, Constitution Party
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
Jill Stein, Green Party
The reason most people probably don't know them is because they don't have the funds to advertise and get their name out there. They also weren't featured in any of the "major" debates that took place.
What about the funding for the canidates during the presidential primaries? Where is that money going to come from?
As you can see from my above questions, I am primarily focused on the presidency.. yet your petition states "all federal elections (House, Senate, and the Presidency) should be financed through taxpayer dollars." That is a hell of a lot of funding for the government to dish out.
I feel you may need to think through this petition a bit more - although I feel the overall premise behind it is good.
~ Basim
A few questions first: Wouldn't this create more of a deficit for the U.S. government? In the recession we are in, would this be the smartest strategy to pursue?
The latest presidential campaign between Obama & Romney cost an estimated $6 billion dollars total (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/11/most-expensive-election-history-numbers/58745/).
Who exactly would determine how much each candidate would receive? Would 3rd Party canidates get the same amount as Democratic & Republic canidates? Wouldn't 3rd party canidates need less money then the two major party canidates or do you feel that all should get equal amounts? Also, how do you prevent random people from starting their own political parties (apparently it's not that hard: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/08/how_to_start_a_political_party.html) and receiving these taxpayer funds from the government to "run their campaign"?
Btw, in the 2012 election these were other major 3rd party canidates:
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party
Virgil Goode, Constitution Party
Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party
Jill Stein, Green Party
The reason most people probably don't know them is because they don't have the funds to advertise and get their name out there. They also weren't featured in any of the "major" debates that took place.
What about the funding for the canidates during the presidential primaries? Where is that money going to come from?
As you can see from my above questions, I am primarily focused on the presidency.. yet your petition states "all federal elections (House, Senate, and the Presidency) should be financed through taxpayer dollars." That is a hell of a lot of funding for the government to dish out.
I feel you may need to think through this petition a bit more - although I feel the overall premise behind it is good.
~ Basim
J Wong
Member
- Messages
- 301
In order for democracy to survive and truly work we need to ensure that the electoral process is not tainted.
To answer you questions:
Deficit: I would argue that this could potentially reduce the deficit. First, I am not advocating we appropriate millions of dollars to each candidate. Second, I argue that this could potentially reduce the number of earmarks any given bill has (e.g. clearing a forest for a factory to be built, etc). Current legislation is riddled with pork barrel spending that is due to, in part, by the obligations that candidates have to special interests.
Who exactly would determine how much each candidate would receive? First, each candidate would receive the same, regardless of party and if future regulation is involved, I would suggest that all candidates should take part in debates. Second, the funds would be appropriated over time so only committed candidates would receive the full amount. Third, how much would each candidate receive? If more regulation is involved this would be easier to determine as it would be the amount to cover those costs. If candidates are limited they will use funds more efficiently as opposed to ridiculous attack ads (obama is a socialist, romney hates the middle class, etc)
Despite the influence of third party funds, I feel that primaries are generally fairly representative of the people and public funds can be used as opposed to taxpayer. While money from special interests would inevitably find its way in there, i think the effect is limited as opposed to special interests deciding final elections.
Lastly, would presidential campaigns get 6 billion dollars. Absolutely not.
To answer you questions:
Deficit: I would argue that this could potentially reduce the deficit. First, I am not advocating we appropriate millions of dollars to each candidate. Second, I argue that this could potentially reduce the number of earmarks any given bill has (e.g. clearing a forest for a factory to be built, etc). Current legislation is riddled with pork barrel spending that is due to, in part, by the obligations that candidates have to special interests.
Who exactly would determine how much each candidate would receive? First, each candidate would receive the same, regardless of party and if future regulation is involved, I would suggest that all candidates should take part in debates. Second, the funds would be appropriated over time so only committed candidates would receive the full amount. Third, how much would each candidate receive? If more regulation is involved this would be easier to determine as it would be the amount to cover those costs. If candidates are limited they will use funds more efficiently as opposed to ridiculous attack ads (obama is a socialist, romney hates the middle class, etc)
Despite the influence of third party funds, I feel that primaries are generally fairly representative of the people and public funds can be used as opposed to taxpayer. While money from special interests would inevitably find its way in there, i think the effect is limited as opposed to special interests deciding final elections.
Lastly, would presidential campaigns get 6 billion dollars. Absolutely not.
J Wong
Member
- Messages
- 301
If I could run elections this is what I would do.
1. Set funds for each candidate
2. Set debates for candidates
3. Set amount of media exposure for candidates.
I would argue that if things are fair and balanced, people will be forced to take more initiative and actually learn about the candidates rather than be saturated with commercials that simply spread hate.
1. Set funds for each candidate
2. Set debates for candidates
3. Set amount of media exposure for candidates.
I would argue that if things are fair and balanced, people will be forced to take more initiative and actually learn about the candidates rather than be saturated with commercials that simply spread hate.
J Wong
Member
- Messages
- 301
Of course, this is by no means a magic bullet, but its a lot easier for people to see when XYZ company says, lets tear down a neighborhood for a pipeline than a behind closed door deal. And yes, while they do talk, I feel like they would be less obligated to commit to special interest obligations as they arent on a monetary lifeline.
- Messages
- 1,459
Thanks for the followup Jordan!
While I still cannot put my head around how this plan can be executed in an efficient & fair manner for all, I feel striving toward that long term goal of "leveling the playing field" would be greatly beneficial for this country.
Will sign the petition soon,
~ Basim
While I still cannot put my head around how this plan can be executed in an efficient & fair manner for all, I feel striving toward that long term goal of "leveling the playing field" would be greatly beneficial for this country.
Will sign the petition soon,
~ Basim
aneeshsahni
New Member
- Messages
- 60
It's weird/challenging to think about the details since it would probably make elections radically different. Anyway, I think it would have a solid impact on policymaking and whose needs are addressed.
What happens if you get 100k signatures?
What happens if you get 100k signatures?